Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
The New Green Deal, as written, is not a plan to deal with climate change. It’s a wish list, and by your comment (“I will never vote for anyone who opposes it”) you’re trying to make it a litmus test for Democrats. You ARE letting the Republicans dictate your vote, IMO.
Lifting lighthearted comments about the impact of air travel and cow farts on emissions targets out of the policy paper and imagining them to be serious proposals to ban such things is a ridiculous mischaracterization in my book. But again, it doesn't really matter how much truth there is in what they say; they'll say it regardless.
It's been what, 30 years now?
I know. But I don't believe it's going to pan out the way the GOP thinks it is.
Beat me to the punch by 3 minutes!
Because here you seemed to be suggesting that ridiculous, unfair ads will be enabled by or dependent upon the debate and vote over the green new deal. Trumps' GOP will generate ridiculous, unfair ads and lines of attack no matter what any Dem does over the next two years.
Again, we keep repeating the same argument; it’s exactly what we talked about with Medicare for All: when you explain things in general terms, the public likes it. The moment you get into any specific that suggests they’re going to have to pay or suffer in any way, they don’t like it.
I think they will work better.
It’s debatable whether her proposal is feasible, but it’s undeniable that our “practical” approach isn’t working.
She sure showed them.
She a complete 
Especially since anyone under-30 has grown up with a general understanding of the fact that methane is the most destructive greenhouse gas and the fact that regulation and reduction of agricultural methane would do more for the environment than we can possibly do using carbon-based fuel reduction until we find truly abundant renewable energy.
Agree 100%. She needs to better represent her district which would have benefitted greatly.She sure showed them.
How does this affect Amazon? It doesn't. How does this affect the D party: negatively.
Oh come on.........Did they also poll them on whether they like their water wet? How about whether roads should be free of potholes? I suppose the next poll question would be do they think it's good that the sun rises every day. These polls mean absolutely nothing. I cant find a single person who would RATHER destroy the environment than use something cleaner and save the planet yadda yadda. The argument, in my mind, has never been about whether people want to do these things, its more about how much they are willing to sacrifice them to get there. So pish posh on those silly poll questions.
The cow farting part is obviously tongue in cheek. Were people literally taking this to mean she planned to make cows stop farting in 10 years?
Wish more cities would stand up to corporate welfare.She sure showed them.
How does this affect Amazon? It doesn't. How does this affect the D party: negatively.
Interesting.....so how does that work? Are we saying if you have 20k in student loan debt, and are about to take on a 200K mortgage that now you will actually finance 220K?
Of course. People are latching onto that because it's emblematic of the overall unseriousness of her proposal. The whole thing reads like something written by a college sophomore who just tripped over the Port Huron statement.
It’s a business decision. Does the revenue from 25k new jobs out weight the tax breaks?. According to Cuomo and his team the answer was yes but apparently aoc knows better....
It was $3.4 billion in tax breaks and grants. That's a ridiculous price tag to bring in a company.
Prove that 3.4b was a bad deal for New York. You said 3.4b was ridiculous but your link indicate other areas offered more. Why was it ridiculous? Where’s the math showing New York was going to lose money here?
Yes. For several reasons (cow farting among them) I think our government should provide economic incentives for us to reduce our consumption of meat.
You're going to have to define what you mean by "bad deal" and explain why you think "ridiculous" in my post means the same thing as that or "lose money." Then I'll be happy to answer your question.
My definition of a bad deal is New York loses money. Ridiculous to me meant you believe the tax package was too much yet other location offer more. My point is Cuomo, del blasio and their teams spent a lot of resources, time, energy to develop this plan with the idea that the revenues from 25k jobs would ultimately offset 3.4b otherwise why do the deal?
So what if other locations offered more?
She wasn’t the only one against it...nor do you have any idea if it would have benefited them overall vs the tax giveaway.
It would be a start. I'm just pointing out that we don't really need to discourage excessive meat consumption so much as we need to stop actively encouraging it by quite as much as we currently are.
I'd prefer if no city/county/state governments gave tax breaks and handouts to businesses. Should be illegal for government to give discriminatory favors to businesses. It's a drain on the country as a whole and a bad deal for local taxpayers.
